MfflMmm 



; Ca lAB 



7637 



Society; of p\ 



K/ l V* C 



liMMiiiiiiw 



l^rtJM 






sAf 



DIVISIONS 



IN THE 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 



BY 

THOMAS H. SPEAKMAN. 



^ 




PHILADELPHIA : 

J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO. 

1869. 



& 



•V 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by 

THOMAS II. SPEAKMAN, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania. 




<W-~d!# 



PEEFACE. 



The immediate occasion of the following essay 
was the appearance of the article in " Friends' Re- 
view," which is made a subject of comment. It may 
seem odd to write a book, even though a small one, 
in reply to a newspaper editorial, but the writer has 
long been impressed with the conviction that the sub- 
ject treated of needs a general review, and a fitting 
opportunity appears to be now presented. 

It is believed, too, that loss has been sustained by 
Friends carrying the non-resistant principle so far as 
to suffer to go almost unrebuked the imperious deport- 
ment and defamatory imputations of their Orthodox 
brethren. There is something due to truth for its 
own sake. It is scarcely less essential to the author 
than to the victim of wrong that it be ventilated and 
exposed, and the sentiment which prompts this, is, in 
the divine economy, one of the most potent instru- 
mentalities of good. All are liable to err, and all 
need corrective influences. It is an undue passive- 

(iii) 



IV PREFACE. 

ness, therefore, which submits to wrong without 
seeking its correction by proper means, and which 
sacrifices dignity and self-respect. 

Such are the sentiments which have prompted this 
essay. It has been written, and is put forth, so far as 
the writer can know himself, in no feeling of enmity, 
but with a design and earnest desire to do good, and 
a belief that such will be its tendency, however harsh 
and controversial it may at first view appear. 

The writer has many near and dear relatives and 
friends of the Orthodox persuasion, and feels that out- 
spoken frankness is consistent with the truest cordi- 
ality, and the only basis upon which the various 
bodies of Friends can hope to draw nearer together. 

It is proper to say that the writer only is respon- 
sible for the sentiments expressed and statements 
made. If injustice has, in any particular, been done 
to the Orthodox brethren, or any of them, it is sin- 
cerely regretted. 

T. H. S. 
Philadelphia, 10th Mo., 1869. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 



Friends' Review — Action of Philadelphia Orthodox Year- 
ly Meeting of 1869 ; they claim the children of Friends 
as members — Arrogant attitude of Orthodox Friends — 
Their abuse of Friends — Some suggestions for their 
consideration 7 

CHAPTER II. 

Which body most nearly represents the original — Posi- 
tion as to speculative doctrines — Origin and causes of 
the separation — New doctrines adopted by Orthodox 
Friends — Doctrine of the Trinity adopted upon the au- 
thority of a spurious passage of Scripture — Mediation 
and atonement — The Scriptures — Chief departure of 
Orthodox Friends their attempt to set up a compul- 
sory creed founded in speculative opinions . . .14 

CHAPTER III. 

Results of the course pursued by each body as bearing 
upon the question which is the true one — Divisions and 
subdivisions among Orthodox Friends — The condition 
of Philadelphia Orthodox Yearly Meeting — its assur- 
ance — Troubles in London Yearly Meeting . . .24 

CHAPTER IV. 

Conduct of each body toward the other as showing which 
best represents the principles and spirit of true Qua- 
kerism — Orthodox assume to be the Society of Friends, 

(v) 



vi CONTENTS. 

and claim all the property — They commence litigation 
— Deny right of burial to Friends — Imprisonment of 
Friends — Disownments for attending Friends' meetings 
or marriages — The Shelter for Colored Orphans — Or- 
thodox retain all the valuable property of Philadelphia 
Yearly Meeting, including Westtown School, and also 
Monthly Meeting property, and make no tender of any 
part to Friends — Insane Asylum at Frankford . . 29 

CHAPTER V. 

Gurney and "Wilbur division among Orthodox Friends — 
Present status of the two extremes — "Which departed 
furthest from common-sense Quakerism — Tendency of 
each — Attire and manners — Diversity of temperament, 
etc., acknowledged to be beneficial, but not tolerated by 
Orthodox 40 

CHAPTER VI. 

Friends solicited to become Orthodox — Comparative in- 
ducements to membership as between the two princi- 
pal branches — Objectionable features of Orthodoxy the 
work of a few members only — Great principles under- 
lying the Quaker faith in its original simplicity — Or- 
thodox subordinate them to theological dogmas — 
The true creed of Friends — The every-day virtues 
which adorn the life of the practical Christian . . 49 

CHAPTER VII. 

Reconciliation and reunion — Reunion in a Society capacity 
improbable — Implacability of Philadelphia Orthodox 
Yearly Meeting — Reunion only possible by return to 
first principles and original simplicity under a modern- 
ized policy, guided by common sense — Hope from indi- 
vidual action 59 



DIVISIONS 



SOOIETT OF FEIEIDS. 



CHAPTEE I. 

Friends' Keview — Action of Philadelphia Orthodox Yearly- 
Meeting of 1869 — They claim the children of Friends as 
members — Arrogant attitude of Orthodox Friends — Their 
abuse of Friends — Some suggestions for their consideration. 

" Friends' Keview/' a paper published in 
Philadelphia in the interest of what is known 
as the Gurney party of Orthodox Friends, under 
date of 5th Month 22d, 1869, in a lengthy edi- 
torial article, introduces the subject of the sep- 
aration of 1827. The article is entitled " Disci- 
pline respecting Unclaimed Membership," and 
its object is stated to be the introduction and re- 
view of the action of their late Yearly Meeting in 
relation to "those individuals who separated from 
our religious Society in 1827, as well as their de- 

O) 



8 DIVISIONS IN THE 

scendants who have not been disowned." The editor 
makes it the occasion of sundry remarks in re- 
gard to the separation of 1827, and questions 
connected with it, which seem to require some 
counter exposition. 

Before proceeding further, however, it may 
promote brevity and perspicuity to have it un- 
derstood in the course of what may hereafter be 
said, that when the Friends who hold their 
Yearly Meeting at Fifteenth and Race Streets, 
Philadelphia, are referred to, they will be desig- 
nated simply as Friends ; and when the Friends 
who hold their Yearly Meeting at Fourth and 
Arch Streets are referred to, they will be desig- 
nated as " Orthodox Friends;" and when italics 
are used, they will be those of the writer. 

The action of the Yearly Meeting referred to 
by the editor of the " Review," consisted in the 
enactment of certain disciplinary amendments to 
the effect, — "That in all cases of the descend- 
ants of those who separated from our religious 
Society in the year 1827, who have not been dealt 
with and disowned, and who do not attend our 
religious meetings, Monthly Meetings may 
inform them of their existing right of mem- 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 9 

bership," and that if they intend "renewing 
their connection with the Society" they must in- 
form the Monthly Meeting or its overseers with- 
in one year, in default of which the Monthly 
Meeting u may make a record of the facts, and 
that such individual has thus forfeited all claim 
to a right of membership in the religious Society 
of Friends ;" and that "should any person thus 
ceasing to be a member of our religious Society" 
afterward apply " to be received into member- 
ship, and the Meeting, after careful inquiry, believe 
him or her to be prepared for religious fellowship 
with Friends, he or she may be received into the 
Society, without any acknowledgment being required 
for former association with those who separated in 
1827/' 

It will thus be seen that the Orthodox brethren 
contemplate an invasion of the religious domain 
of Friends, and their social and family circles, 
in order to claim, and if possible entice away 
from them, in many instances, their children and 
young people. A proceeding so extraordinary, 
superadded to the disrespect shown in the arro- 
gant attitude assumed, and language used, seems 
to require, at least, a measure so far counterac- 



10 DIVISIONS IN THE 

tive, as the endeavor to present from the stand- 
point of Friends, for the perusal and considera- 
tion of the members of both branches, an 
unreserved and true exposition of the general 
subject. 

In alluding to the happy condition of the So- 
ciety of Friends, as it existed within the limits 
of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting half a century 
ago, the editor remarks: "The seeds of Socinian- 
isrn, it is true, had commenced their germination, 
but the growth was unperceived and unsuspected 
by the masses." Again, in connection with the 
imputation that in the " unhappy separation of 
1827," there being no " sharp dividing line of 
doctrine," many went with Friends from "mis- 
apprehension of facts, sheer lack of individual- 
ity," personal connections, etc., "having little 
comprehension of the true issue," he says; "and 
it is sad to reflect that after this division, by the 
very existence of an organization which owed its 
establishment to a controversy upon this point, 
Socinian views have been furnished with an oppor- 
tunity for growth." And again, in connection 
with the subject of reunion, he says, " To be sub- 
jected to the preaching of Socinian doctrines in 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. \\ 

our meetings, would be worse than our present 
division into two distinct organizations." 

What Socinian doctrines are, the writer does 
not care to inquire. It is enough, for the pres- 
ent purpose, to know that, in the estimation of 
the editor of the "Review," they are something 
very pernicious; inasmuch as to have to listen 
to the preaching of them would, as he declares, 
be worse than the present division into two dis- 
tinct organizations, which he so much deplores. 

The object in referring in the outset to these 
offensive imputations is to suggest for the serious 
consideration of the editor of the "Review," as 
well as his religious associates, — for this is no new 
thing, — whether it is not unkind and ungener- 
ous, as well as unwise, and unbecoming the high 
profession they make, thus publicly, and in an 
obvious spirit of enmity, to assail Friends, and 
accuse them of maintaining some false and mon- 
strous doctrines, so pernicious, that the editor of 
the "Review" assumes, of his own motion, with- 
out provocation, to denounce and abjure them in 
the face of the religious world. Is there any call 
for such conduct, or any good likely, or even in- 
tended, to be accomplished by it? Is it in ac- 



12 DIVISIONS IN THE 

cordance with either the precepts or example of 
Him for whom our Orthodox brethren profess 
so great a reverence ? "As ye would that men 
should do unto you, do ye even so unto them." 
Have Orthodox Friends ever paused to consider 
whether, by the various forms of slanderous 
abuse, and other means by which they have 
sought to injure Friends, they have not really 
much more injured themselves? Such is be- 
lieved to be the fact, and a result in harmony 
with the Divine law as inherent in the nature of 
things, and as declared by Christ in his sermon 
on the mount: "Blessed are ye when men shall 
revile you and persecute you, and shall say all 
manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your 
reward in heaven : for so persecuted they the 
prophets which were before you." 

The editor of the "Review," in further impu- 
tation of heresy against Friends, and pursuant to 
the predilection for doctrinal theology that seems 
so prevalent among his sect, proceeds to say : 
"We do not abate in the least our Christian tes- 
timony against the great fundamental errors under- 
lying the separation ; when the precious doctrine 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 13 

of the Spirit's influence and guidance was upheld 
at the expense of a belief in the testimony of the 
Scriptures, and of Christ concerning himself, 
and of the sacrificial and atoning death upon the 
cross, which was the purchase of our salvation, the 
only atonement for our sins, and upon which the send- 
ing of the blessed Comforter was consequent. 
"We do not cease to regard with horror a system 
of belief which would regard the blood of the cov- 
enant as not a holy thing." The accusation thus 
made against Friends in regard to great funda- 
mental errors, and the holding of Socinian doc- 
trines, coupled with the remarkable assumption 
of the Orthodox brethren that they were and 
are the Society of Friends, implies the assertion 
that Friends have departed from, and Orthodox 
Friends maintained, the doctrines and principles 
held by the Society from the beginning; and 
this assumption it is next proposed to consider. 



14 DIVISIONS IN THE 



CHAPTER II. 

TVhich body most nearly represents the original — Position as 
to speculative doctrines — Origin and cause of the separa- 
tion — New doctrines adopted by Orthodox Friends — Doc- 
trine of the Trinity adopted upon the authority of a 
spurious passage of Scripture — Mediation and atonement 
— The Scriptures — Chief departure of Orthodox Friends 
their attempt to set up a compulsory creed founded in 
speculative opinions. 

In the inquiry as to which body of Friends 
most nearly represents the orginal one, it is not 
intended to go into a discussion of the refine- 
ments of speculative doctrines and opinions. 
The allegation that Friends do or do not believe 
in this or that theological dogma is neither ad- 
mitted nor denied. It does not properly apper- 
tain to Friends to call in question the soundness 
of each other's opinions, nor to prescribe or 
attempt to coerce any fixed standard of belief 
upon any such matters. Enough may be found 
in a comparison of the action and conduct of the 
two parties about the time of the separation and 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 15 

since, to determine which occupies the original 
ground. 

First may be noted the important fact that 
Friends retain to this day the ancient discipline 
of the Society as it stood for several generations 
before the separation, unchanged by the erasure 
or addition of a single word on doctrinal points. 
Neither have they made any change as to modes 
and forms, except as to the manner of appoint- 
ing elders, the performance of marriages at the 
dwellings of the parties under the care of the 
Monthly Meeting instead of in the public meet- 
ings for worship, and perhaps a few other unim- 
portant matters. 

The first symptoms of the dissensions which 
culminated in division, in 1827, consisted in the 
unsuccessful endeavor of a party of members, 
prominent among whom were several English 
Friends, then on a religious visit to this country, 
to procure the adoption and promulgation, by 
the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia, of certain 
doctrinal views in the nature of a creed or 
declaration of faith. This was followed by 
accusations of unsoundness and by overbearing 
conduct on the part of those inclined to ortho- 



16 DIVISIONS IN THE 

doxy, including the English Friends before 
mentioned, which was persisted in for several 
years, giving rise to strife and recrimination, in 
which both parties were doubtless highly cen- 
surable, till relief could only be found in separa- 
tion. Here, then, is found the origin and cause 
of the schism, and it is told in few words, — the 
introduction of speculative theology, and the 
attempt to set up and enforce a fixed standard 
of dogmatical opinions. 

In what particulars the ancient and simple 
faith of the Society was considered incomplete 
by Orthodox Friends may be found from the 
additions which were made when they came to 
be a separate body. At their first Yearly Meet- 
ing after the separation they commenced the 
work of remodeling the discipline in accord- 
ance with the new views of which they had sought 
to procure the adoption several years before. 
A number of doctrinal amendments were made 
to the discipline that year, some of which are 
quite significant of the altered sentiment which 
prevailed. The first which will be noticed is 
the following. 

"We receive and believe in the testimony of 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 17 

the Scripture simply as it stands in the text — 
4 There are three that bear record in heaven, 
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and 
these three are one/ "' 

This is no other than the formal adoption, as 
an article of faith, of the theological doctrine of 
the Trinity, as professed and understood by most 
of the religious denominations of the day. It 
is true that the language used is that of the 
Bible now in use ; but why give to this particu- 
lar passage so much prominence as specially to 
incorporate it in the Book of Discipline at that 
particular juncture, after the Society had been 
in existence nearly two hundred years without 
it, unless the object was to establish it as a new 
article of faith ? 

Orthodox Friends were, however, unfortunate 
in selecting as the foundation of this new article 
of their faith the clause which they have incor- 
porated in the discipline, u There are three that 
bear record;" etc. This clause, as it stands, is 
now admitted to be spurious. It seems that it 
is not found in any of the Greek manuscripts 
written before the sixteenth century; and of 
one hujidred and thirteen copies now extant, it 

2 



18 DIVISIONS IN THE 

is found in but one, that of Trinity College, 
Dublin. Neither is it found in any of the ear- 
lier Latin copies, or quoted by any of the Greek 
or Latin fathers in their religious controversies. 
It is wanting in the editions of Erasmus and 
Luther, in both the Syriac versions, the Coptic, 
Armenian, Sclavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic. In 
concluding his notes upon this text, Albert 
Barnes says: "The passage is now omitted in 
the best editions of the Greek Testament, and 
regarded as spurious by the ablest critics."* 

Another addition made to the discipline the 
same year (1828) was the following in regard to 
the Scriptures : " We have always asserted our 
willingness that all our doctrines and practices 
be tried by them ; and admit it as a positive 
maxim that whatever any do, pretending to the 
spirit, which is contrary to the Scriptures, be 
accounted and reckoned a delusion of the devil." 



* Those who may desire further satisfaction as to the 
spurious character of this passage are referred to the Notes 
of Albert Barnes, on the Epistles of John ; the Commentaries 
of Adam Clarke, and those of Karl Braune, translated from 
the German by J. Isidor Hombert, and published by Scrib- 
ner & Co., New York, 1867, and the further references given 
by these authors. 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 19 

This is mainly a quotation from Robert Barclay. 
Barclay said many other things in regard to the 
Scriptures which might, with equal if not much 
greater propriety, have been selected as ex- 
pressive of the views of Friends on that subject. 
He said, for example, " Yet we may not call 
them (the Scriptures) the principal fountain of 
all truth and knowledge, nor yet the first ade- 
quate rale of faith and manners; because the 
principal fountain of truth must be the truth 
itself; i.e. that whose certainty and authority 
depend not upon another. When we doubt of 
the stream of any river or flood, we recur to the 
fountain, and having found it, there we desist; 
we can go no further, because there it springs 
out of the bowels of the earth, which are in- 
scrutable." 

And again he said, "The principal rule of 
Christians under the Gospel is not an outward 
letter, nor law outwardly written and delivered, 
but an inward spiritual law, engraven in the 
heart, the law of the spirit of life, the word that 
is nigh in the heart and in the mouth." 

But the passage from Barclay thus selected by 
Orthodox Friends as part of their system of be- 



20 DIVISIONS IN THE 

lief would seem to have been selected because, 
standing by itself, it goes further than any other 
passage in contradiction of the great leading 
doctrine which he himself maintains on this 
subject, — that of the paramount authority of 
the Spirit which gave forth the Scriptures over 
the Scriptures themselves. The object appears 
to be to give prominence to a doctrine which 
they- are afraid openly to assert, because denied 
emphatically by our early Friends, to wit, that 
the Scriptures are the word of God exclu- 
sively, and denying the continuance, at the 
present day, of the spirit of revelation through 
which they came. It is the doctrine of the so- 
called Evangelical churches, which virtually de- 
nies the existence of the divine principle as a 
guide and preserving influence in the souls of 
men, degrades the sacred writings to the level 
of a lifeless tradition, and makes an object of 
worship of the mere letter. 

In the year 1834 Orthodox Friends revised 
the discipline, and they then formally placed on 
record their adhesion to the doctrine of the 
mediation and atonement, as understood and 
upheld by church professors, by interpolating 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 21 

the words " mediation or atonement" in a clause 
of the then existing discipline. At the same 
time they adopted the following as part of their 
declaration of faith : 

"By the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ with- 
out us he hath reconciled us to God, even while 
we are enemies ; that is, he offers reconciliation 
unto us, and puts us into a capacity of being re- 
conciled; and we, truly repenting and believing, 
are, through the mercy of God, justified from the 
imputation of sins and transgressions that are 
past as though they_had never been committed ; 
and by the mighty work of Christ within us, the 
power, nature, and habits of sin are destroyed ; 
that as sin once reigned unto death, even so 
now grace reigneth through righteousness unto 
eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord." 

It is quite possible, though we need not stop 
to inquire as to that, that this also is a compila- 
tion from the voluminous writings of some of 
our ancient Friends; for coming, as many of 
them did, from various religious denominations 
in which dogmatic theology was taught, they 
were not entirely free from the bias of their 
early training. But that Orthodox Friends 



22 DIVISIONS IN THE 

of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting should, in the 
year 1834, adopt and publish this as part of their 
creed, must be cause of astonishment and regret 
to those who desire to see the Society of Friends, 
as it was ill the beginning, a pioneer in the re- 
form of the Church from priestcraft and super- 
stition. 

A number of other doctrinal additions were 
made to the discipline by Orthodox Friends 
within a few years immediately following the 
separation, but the foregoing are the principal 
ones, and it is needless to specify them further. 
However objectionable any of them may be as a 
departure from the views generally entertained 
among Friends, and as going back to the priest- 
devised theology from which Friends obtained 
their deliverance at so great a sacrifice, the 
greatest objection to them is yet to be stated, and 
that is, setting them up as a creed or confession 
of faith, and asserting the right to enforce them 
upon all as compulsory articles of acceptance 
and belief. However these tenets of the popu- 
lar theology, or any of them, may have been 
indorsed by individual writers among early 
Friends, in the desire to narrow the ground of 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 23 

difference between them and other Christian 
denominations, and however unobjectionable, or 
even excellent, they may be in themselves, it 
was never before attempted to set them up as 
vital principles of faith that must be believed and 
upheld by all; and herein consists the chief 
departure of Orthodox Friends. 



24 DIVISIONS IN THE 



CHAPTER III. 

Eesults of the course pursued by each body as bearing upon 
the question which is the true one — Divisions and subdivis- 
ions among Orthodox Friends — The condition of Philadel- 
phia Orthodox Yearly Meeting — Its assurance — Troubles 
in London Yearly Meeting. 

As bearing upon the question which branch of 
the Society most nearly occupies the ground of 
the orginal one, we may next inquire as to the 
results of the course pursued by each. From its 
origin to the commencement of the difficulties, 
which culminated in the separation, the Society 
of Friends had been, with few and unimportant 
exceptions, a united and harmonious body. It 
was well said of them, " See the Quakers, how 
they love one another!" The editor of the "Re- 
view," in his article, gives a beautiful picture of 
the harmony then existing, when he says, "Per- 
sonal introductions were scarcely necessary, — the 
sight of a stranger Friend in the street caused a 
kindly heart-glow, — the love of the brethren was 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 25 

both a principle and a practice,— hospitality was 
a matter of course, — warm and close friendships 
passed, almost by inheritance, to children's chil- 
dren, and the larger gatherings of the Church 
were not merely times of spiritual refreshing and 
renewing, but of social reunion also, when those 
who rarely met, except upon such occasions, were 
filled with each other's company, and helped one 
another forward on the heavenly journey, 'after 
a godly sort/ " 

Friends, embracing six Yearly Meetings in the 
United States, are and have been since the sepa- 
ration, a united and harmonious bod} 7 , and to 
them the foregoing language would, it is believed, 
still apply. But how has it fared with Orthodox 
Friends? But a few years had elapsed (after 
they became a separate organization), when 
charges of unsoundness in doctrine began to be 
made among themselves, entailing party strife, 
bitterness, and recrimination, till they became 
involved in a second separation, extending 
throughout all their Yearly Meetings, in this 
country, except Philadelphia, the two parties 
designating each other as "Wilburites" and 
" Gurneyites." And, in regard to their Yearly 



20 DIVISIONS IN THE 

Meeting of Philadelphia, though the members 
continue to meet together, they are composed 
essentially of two distinct parties under the same 
names. In some places, also, a further division 
has taken place by a split of the Wilbur party 
into two separate branches. 

An instructive but sorrowful lesson may be 
drawn from the experience of Philadelphia 
Yearly Meeting of Orthodox Friends, as w r ell 
as a convincing argument as to its departure 
from the true ground of the Society of Friends. 
It was there the separation of 1827 commenced 
by the intolerance of a few, who resolutely at- 
tempted, in a spirit of overbearing arrogance, to 
put dow T n all who would not bow to their dictation 
and conform to the standard which they had set 
up ; and this spirit has continued on the part of 
Orthodox Friends of Philadelphia Yearly Meet- 
ing toward Friends from that day to this, now 
over forty years, with little abatement, as 
shown by the article in the " Review," and the 
action of their late Yearly Meeting. The schism 
thus created in Philadelphia in 1827, spread 
through nearly all the meetings in this country. 
The Orthodox schism of Gurney and Wilbur, 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 27 

following from the same general cause as the 
other, also spread through all their meetings ex- 
cept Philadelphia ; and as the result of the two, 
their Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia now stands 
alone, unrecognized by, and having no inter- 
course or correspondence with, any other body 
of Friends in this country or elsewhere. And 
agreeably to the estimates of a writer in " The 
Friend/' the organ of the " Wilbur," as the " Re- 
view" is of the Gurney party, in Philadelphia, 
they have laid down and discontinued, from 1880 
to 1868, thirty per cent, of their meetings; while 
in the number of members they have declined, 
from 1839 to 1868, a period of twenty-nine years, 
over forty-two per cent.* Philadelphia Yearly 
Meeting of Orthodox Friends thus stands alone, 
a mere wreck, and a monument of its own folly, 
amidst the wide-spread ruin it has created, the 
combined result of speculative theology, intoler- 
ance, and fossilized ritualism. 

And yet, notwithstanding all this, Philadel- 
phia Yearly Meeting of Orthodox Friends, as late 
as the year 1868, had the presumption to issue 

* See " The Friend " of 1st Mo. 23d, 1869. 



28 DIVISIONS IN THE 

an elaborate address " to its own members and 
to the members of other Yearly Meetings/' and 
by its terms addressed to all who take the name 
of Friends, in which their theological creed is 
again put forth, and by which, with character- 
istic assurance, they assume to lay down, as it 
were, the law and the gospel to Friends every- 
where. 

London Yearly Meeting, which took sides 
w T ith the Orthodox, in 1827, has not been exempt 
from the troubles which the same policy has en- 
tailed upon its advocates in this country. The 
proceedings of their meeting, as published from 
time to time in the "British Friend" and "The 
London Friend," show the prevalence of dissen- 
sions there also, arising from a spirit of intoler- 
ance, manifested in accusations of unsoundness 
in matters of theological opinion. But it is 
gratifying to find that there are many there who, 
though themselves perhaps opposed to the views 
alleged to be unsound, have yet the liberality and 
independence to proclaim the absurdity of the 
Church attempting to interfere with private 
opinion in matters of a purely speculative char- 
acter. 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 29 



CHAPTER IV, 

Conduct of each body toward the other as showing which 
best represents the principles and spirit of true Quakerism — 
The Orthodox assume to be the Society of Friends, and claim 
all the property — They commence litigation — Deny right 
of burial to Friends — Imprisonment of Friends — Disown- 
ments for attending Friends' meetings or marriages — The 
Shelter for Colored Orphans — Orthodox retain all the val- 
uable property of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, includ- 
ing "Westtown School and also Monthly Meeting property, 
and make no tender of any part to Friends — Insane Asylum 
at Frankford. 

The impartial inquirer after truth may also 
find some assurance as to which body of Friends 
most nearly represents the principles and the 
spirit of true Quakerism, by comparing and con- 
sidering the conduct of each toward the other at 
the time of the separation and since. 

In Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, and in all the 
subordinate meetings of that city except Green 
Street Monthly Meeting, the Orthodox party 
generally embraced those occupying official posi- 
tions, and the more active and influential class 



30 DIVISIONS IN THE 

of members, though as to the whole Yearly 
Meeting they were but about one-third in num- 
bers. Having on their side the Clerks, who, ac- 
cording to the established practice, decide, not 
according to numbers, but according to what they 
deem the sense of the meeting, and the w T eight 
of the expression, the Clerks assumed that their 
party constituted the meeting, and that those of the 
other side were of no weight or consequence, and 
thus virtually disfranchised them. The then Clerk 
of the Yearly Meeting, in his testimony in the 
chancery suit in New Jersey, said of those who 
were in opposition to him, "I never considered 
them entitled to any weight or influence at all." 
The charges of preaching " unsound doctrines," 
made and reiterated in the meetings for several 
years prior to 1827, came from Orthodox Friends. 
And though it must be admitted that Friends 
too freely entered into the prevailing strife, when, 
on the assembling of Philadelphia Yearly Meet- 
ing in 1827, it became apparent that a division 
must take place, Friends, though nearly if not 
quite two to one in point of numbers, prepared 
quietly to withdraw and reorganize the Yearly 
Meeting upon its original basis. "Whether in 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 31 

thus abandoning their undoubted right as the 
larger body they acted wisely, as to the best in- 
terest and future good of either, may well be 
questioned ; but if they erred, all must admit that 
it was on the side of peace and quietness, those 
virtues which had ever so prominently marked 
the character of the Society of Friends. 

The schism accomplished, Orthodox Friends, 
though so greatly in the minority, immediately 
asserted themselves to be exclusively the Society of 
Friends, and entitled to all the property acquired 
by the common contributions, and that Friends 
were not entitled to be considered or recognized 
as Friends at all. Pursuant to this high-handed 
and most extraordinary assumption, they pro- 
ceeded to carry out the form of laying down all 
those meetings where they had few or no mem- 
bers, and serving certificates of disownment in all 
other cases, and for that purpose obtruding them- 
selves upon and into the houses and premises of 
Friends. 

The writer is one of those who was thus dis- 
owned. While at work in his father's field he 
was visited by a Monthly Meeting Committee, 
composed of two Orthodox Friends, who then 



32 DIVISIONS IN TEE 

and there, by means of tracts and representations 
founded in doctrinal theology, and intelligible 
only to a student of divinity, sought to convince 
him that they were the true Society of Friends. 
The reply was that enough was found in the un- 
charitable conduct of Orthodox Friends, in claim- 
ing to be exclusively the Society of Friends and 
entitled to all its property, to preclude religious 
fellowship with them.* 

Further evidence of the faithfulness of Friends 
to their peaceable principles is found in the fact 
that there is no instance on record of these ex- 
traordinary proceedings of Orthodox Friends ever 
having resulted in a breach of the peace. And 
these doings Orthodox Friends now propose to 
repeat by visiting, in certain cases, the children 
of Friends, to notify them of a right of member- 
ship which it is assumed they have with them. 

It has ever been one of the cardinal testimo- 
nies of the Society that the members should not 



* The certificate of disownment, still in the writer's posses- 
sion, certifies that u he is no longer a member of the religious 
Society of Friends until he becomes sensible in his own mind 
of his transgression, and is thereby rightly qualified to condemn 
the same to the satisfaction of Friends.' ' 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 33 

go to law with one another unless in extreme 
and exceptional cases, yet one of the first meas- 
ures of Orthodox Friends was to appeal to law in 
support of the assumption that they were the So- 
ciety of Friends, and entitled to all its property. Suit 
was instituted in the Chancery of New Jersey, 
designed to be a test as to Philadelphia Yearly 
Meeting, which embraced that State ; and an ac- 
tion was also instituted with a view to dispossess 
Friends of Green Street Monthly Meeting of 
their meeting-house : but this was afterward 
abandoned. The law was likewise appealed to 
by Orthodox Friends in New York, and also in 
Ohio ; but no real advantage was gained in either 
case by this infraction of an important testimony. 
A temporary success in the suit in New Jersey 
merely resulted in the enactment of a law pro- 
viding for a division of property according to 
numbers. 

Friends of Green Street Monthly Meeting were 
denied even the right to bury their dead in the 
ground they had purchased jointly with several 
other Monthly Meetings. Orthodox Friends 
having control, through a majority of the trus- 
tees, Friends of Green Street could only ob- 



34 DIVISIONS IN THE 

tain access to their grounds by scaling the wall 
with ladders and breaking the lock at each fu- 
neral, unless they would bow to a decree by which 
it was alleged their meeting was laid down and 
the members annexed to an adjacent meeting 
of Orthodox. And when, in order to put an end 
to this state of things, Friends, having obtained 
the consent of a portion of the trustees, pro- 
ceeded to make an opening in the wall on the 
opposite side of the grounds, so as to put in 
a gate through which they might enter peace- 
ably, the Friends engaged in the work were 
caused to be arrested upon a warrant issued by 
the then Mayor of the city, and they refusing 
to give bail from a conscientious conviction 
they had done no wrong, were committed to 
prison, where they remained until discharged by 
the Court. 

At the Orthodox Yearly Meeting, in 1828, an 
article of discipline was adopted making it an 
offense punishable with disownment for any of 
their members to attend the meetings of the 
" Separatists," as they designated Friends, or to 
attend a marriage among them, or sign a cer- 
tificate of marriage, even though it might be of a 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 35 

brother or sister, child, or other near relative ; 
the gravamen of the offense consisting, as they 
state, in "acknowledging these meetings as though 
they were meetings of Friends." 

There is an institution in Philadelphia called 
the "Shelter for Colored Orphans," which origi- 
nated among members of the Society of Friends 
anterior to the separation, and for the establish- 
ment and maintenance of which all alike con- 
tributed ; and even since the separation, though 
exclusively under Orthodox control, Friends have 
been asked, and have made contributions for 
its support. Yet, by a rule established by the 
Orthodox managers of the institution, the chil- 
dren under its care are allowed to be put out to 
members of any religious denomination except 
Catholics, Unitarians, and "Hicksites," the latter 
being the name by which they designate Friends. 

At Frankford, near Philadelphia, is an asylum 
for the insane, established by members of the 
Society of Friends. Of this institution, Orthodox 
Friends, by surreptitious means, managed to get 
the control after the separation, and from the 
management of it, Friends have since been wholly 
excluded. 



36 DIVISIONS IN THE 

Orthodox Friends have also retained to this 
day all the valuable property belonging to Phil- 
adelphia Yearly Meeting, in its aggregate capa- 
city, including the school at Westtown,and also 
the property belonging to most of the Monthly 
Meetings of Philadelphia, from the use of all of 
which Friends have ever since been excluded, 
and no part or portion of it has ever been ten- 
dered to them. 

We may now contrast with all this the con- 
duct of Friends toward their Orthodox brethren. 
Notwithstanding the uncourteous and overbear- 
ing manner in which they were treated, Friends 
have not retaliated, but sought to adhere to 
their religious profession. In the address of the 
reorganized Yearly Meeting, held in Philadel- 
phia in the 10th Month, 1827, to the Quarterly, 
Monthly, and other meetings, they used the fol- 
lowing language: "Our profession is high and 
holy; and let us be increasingly concerned to 
walk consistently therewith. The patient suf- 
ferings of our faithful predecessors finally estab- 
lished for them an excellent name, even among 
their persecutors. They held up with practical 
clearness a peaceable testimony against 'wars 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 37 

and fightings/ and by a scrupulous adherence to 
the principles of justice, became proverbial for 
their integrity. In the present afflicting state of 
things, we feel deeply concerned that their ex- 
ample in these respects may be kept steadily in 
view, — that our religious testimonies may never 
be wounded by contending for property and as- 
serting our rights; that no course be pursued, 
although sanctioned by the laws of the excellent 
government under which we live, that may be at 
variance with the spirit of that holy Lawgiver, 
who taught his disciples, 'If any man will sue 
thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him 
have thy cloak also/ 

44 And we tenderly exhort, that in places where 
our members constitute the larger part of any 
meeting, their conduct be regulated by the rule 
laid down by our blessed Lord : ' Whatsoever ye 
would that men should do to you, do you even 
so to them.' The discipline under which we act 
positively discourages members of our Society 
from suing each other at law. To violate this 
discipline, in a meeting capacity, is not only a 
departure from our established order, but is calcu- 
lated to injure us in the eyes of sober inquirers 



38 DIVISIONS IN THE 

after truth, and to disturb the peace of our own 
minds." 

It is believed that Friends as a body have lived 
up to the peaceable principles here enunciated. 
Desirous, in a spirit of Christian charity, to accord 
to their Orthodox brethren the same sincerity 
and integrity of purpose that they claimed for 
themselves, and in imitation of the example of 
Abraham and Lot, they have been willing their 
Orthodox brethren should follow their own con- 
victions, and go which way they would, not seek- 
ing to impose upon them any restrictions or inflict 
any penalties. Excepting the Meetings in the 
city of Philadelphia, in the majority of cases 
throughout Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, as w 7 ell 
as those of Ifew York, Baltimore, and Ohio, 
Friends, being the larger body, retained posses- 
sion of the common property, Orthodox Friends 
withdrawing and setting up other meetings. 
Yet there were no disownments of Orthodox 
Friends as separatists and offenders, and in every 
instance, as is believed, Friends tendered to 
their Orthodox brethren their due proportion of 
the common property, an offer which was gener- 
ally rejected, they refusing to treat with Friends, 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 39 

or do anything that might be construed into a 
recognition of them as Friends, or entitled to 
any rights as such; and as to the property, de- 
manding, in a spirit which seems peculiar to 
modern orthodoxy, all or none. 

The world knows something of the character 
of Friends in generations that are past. They 
have not lived wholly in vain. History records 
the peaceable spirit which has ever marked their 
conduct toward one another, as well as to those 
around them. Whatever less commendatory 
may be said of them, it is believed they will be 
accorded the reputation of having ever loved 
justice and right. In the light of all these con- 
siderations, let the impartial inquirer judge which 
body has, since the year 1827, by its conduct, 
best earned the right to be considered in har- 
mony with the Friends of generations that are 
past. 



40 DIVISIONS IN THE 



CHAPTER V. 

Gurney and Wilbur division among Orthodox Friends — 
Present status of the two extremes — Which departed fur- 
thest from common-sense Quakerism — Tendency of each 
— Attire and manners — Diversity of temperament, etc., 
acknowledged to be beneficial, but not tolerated by Or- 
thodox. 

It may serve further to illustrate the depart- 
ure of Orthodox Friends from the true ground 
of the Society to take a glance at the Gurney 
and Wilbur separation, and see where the re- 
spective parties now stand. In the chancery 
suit in New Jersey, in 1828, Orthodox Friends 
entered largely into doctrines, and took the 
ground and sought to maintain that the Society 
of Friends agreed in substance with other Protest- 
ant Trinitarian sects, and their tendency was, as 
we have seen, toward the popular Evangelical 
churches of the day, by the establishment of a 
system of theological opinions or articles of 
faith similar to theirs. It was this tendency, 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 41 

proceeding to its natural result, which pro- 
duced the Gurney and Wilbur separation. 
Many there were who saw ere long whither 
their new lights were leading them, and the 
consequence was the second separation, and the 
establishment of two extremes, the inevitable 
result of hostile reaction. 

The Gurney party has reached its present 
climax in Illinois and Indiana, an exponent of 
their views and mode of proceeding being found 
in the "Herald of Peace/ ' published at Chi- 
cago. One of the editors of the Herald, writing 
from Richmond, Indiana, for his paper of 5th 
Mo. 22d, 1869, says : 

" The Friends' meeting-house on Fifth Street 
is crowded nightly with Christians, seekers, and 
some who are drawn thither out of curiosity, 
who often remain to pray. Few persons in Rich- 
mond seem quite to have escaped the influence 
of the revival. The most reckless and hardened 
men, the most gay and careless women, the 
most indifferent and ' gospel-hardened' church- 
members, are melted by the mighty power of 
God. There seems to be a deep, quiet, but irre- 
sistible current of salvation flowing through the 



42 DIVISIONS IN THE 

community. Jesus of Nazareth is passing by. 
Words must ever be inadequate to give a cor- 
rect understanding of the work in progress 
here. A short description of one meeting may 
be interesting. The meeting gathered at eight 
o'clock, and was opened by the reading of a chap- 
ter from the Bible. Then it was thrown open for 
short, concise, and pointed remarks or prayers. 
The greatest liberty is allowed and encouraged; 
but long sermons or cursory remarks are discour- 
aged. After an hour spent in this manner, dur- 
ing which time very many spoke, testifying of 
the loving-kindness of the Lord, or earnestly 
invoking the blessing of God upon the congre- 
gation, an opportunity was given for any who 
felt that they needed the prayers of Christian 
people to stand up, and quite a number arose. 
An opportunity was then allowed for any who 
wished to retire to do so, while those who were 
burdened on account of their sins were invited 
to come forward, that their Christian friends 
might gather around them and unite in prayer 
for a blessing upon them. More than a score 
came and took their places on the front seats, 
many kneeling together in the open space in 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 43 

front of the seat usually occupied as the head 
of the meeting, while their friends moved about 
among them, conversing and praying with them. 

" One striking and beautiful feature of the 
meetings is the part taken by the young, espe- 
cially the young women, whose bright, cheerful 
faces, united with their sweet voices in praising 
God, inviting sinners to Christ, or pleading for 
some seeking soul, is a feature calculated to 
move all hearts and arouse the most indifferent. 
Occasionally a hymn is sung, sometimes by one 
alone, — sometimes joined in by many in the 
congregation. Nothing is forced or crowded, 
but nothing is repressed. The spirit is allowed 
to have free course ; members of other denomi- 
nations are invited to take part, and the evi- 
dence is abundant that God is glorified thereby. 
Above sixty are believed to have been converted 
at these meetings up to this time, and the work 
still goes on." 

It is not intended to find fault with the peo- 
ple who are concerned in these meetings. They 
certainly have a right to do as they think best, 
and their mode of proceeding may be a great im- 
provement; but it must strike most persons as 



44 DIVISIONS IN THE 

rather a misnomer to call such gatherings, so 
conducted, meetings of Friends. They certainly 
partake more of the character of the meetings 
of that excellent people, the Methodists, than 
those of Friends, as understood in days that are 
past. 

The other extreme is to be found in the Wil- 
bur party, of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, and 
its status may be ascertained from its organ, 
" The Friend." A writer in that paper of 1st 
Mo. 30th, 1869, holds the following language : 
" It has appeared a plain fact to the writer that 
the feeling of open or secret opposition to those 
testimonies of truth which distinguish Friends 
from the world in general, and which feeling 
seems to pervade so large a portion of our mem- 
bers, was exerting a highly baneful influence 
among us, and is a potent cause of the weak- 
ness and decay that have spread like a pall 
among our several congregations. It seems to 
draw a sharp line of distinction, in our meet- 
ings for discipline, between those who are con- 
sidered to live consistently with their profession, 
and those who do not; cutting off, with the lat- 
ter class, from almost all active participation in 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 45 

the services of the church, a body of young men 
and women of noble and cultivated intellects, 
as well as high moral and social worth, whose 
help is sorely needed within its pale, but whose 
attire and manners are not such as to give evi- 
dence of preparation for service. This class, 
even if they attend disciplinary meetings for a 
time, very naturally feel but a feeble interest in 
affairs that they cannot participate in; and 
although many of them profess, and doubtless 
feel, a strong desire for the spread of Christianity 
in the world, they gradually decline to frequent 
such assemblies, and the church is paralyzed in 
its exertions through their defection. " 

This may be called the extreme of conservative 
ritualism. All that is left of Quakerism there 
seems to consist in the maintenance of outward 
forms. The " testimonies of truth which distin- 
guish Friends from the world in general" appear, 
according to the view of this writer, to consist 
exclusively in the maintenance of a certain pre- 
scribed formula as to attire and manners, and he 
laments that the young will not conform to their 
requirements in these respects. It is strange 
that this branch of Orthodox Friends has never 



46 DIVISIONS IN THE 

waked up to the conviction that they cannot 
thrive on the emptiness of mere sanctimonious- 
ness; and that that which they propose as the 
remedy, to wit, a more rigid conformity in regard 
to " attire and manners," is itself the chief cause 
of their difficulties. Their climax in this par- 
ticular is the enforcement of a sectarian uniform 
upon even the children at their schools. The 
idea is often held up that these outward observ- 
ances constitute the index to a life of true res- 
ignation to the divine will ; but, unfortunately, 
with the class who attach so much importance to 
"attire and manners," the index has come to be 
regarded as the thing itself, and all of religion 
to consist in these mere outward forms. 

In comparing the two extremes, as developed 
at Richmond, Indiana, and Philadelphia, it is per- 
haps difficult to tell which has wandered furthest 
from the standard of true common-sense Quaker- 
ism. The one course leads backward, and tends 
to undo all that the Society of Friends has ever 
done, and to destroy true spiritual worship in 
the boisterous confusion of a popular religious 
revival; and the other, by dependence upon a 
mere routine of traditional forms, and opposing 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 47 

all innovations and progressive movements, leads 
to inevitable death and extinction. 

The editor of the " Review," in his article be- 
fore alluded to, admits the loss which Orthodox 
Friends sustained by the separation of 1827. 
He says : " There is, perhaps, scarcely a congre- 
gation in which the gifts and the individuality- 
are not needed of those who walk not with us. 
In those olden days, which in memory are 
familiar to us still, a congregation was composed 
of nearly every grade of talent, temperament, 
and position in life. There were uses for all 
members, and members for all uses. The rend- 
ing came, and those whom God had joined men 
put asunder. Among the sorrowful results was 
this, that the congregations were left to be com- 
posed of persons too much alike. There was 
often lacking that native diversity which, when 
combined and sanctified, gives perfect efficiency, 
affords scope for charity, and promotes the truest 
unity." 

It is encouraging to find that at least one of 
our Orthodox brethren has at last come to a 
realization of the great truth here expressed. 
But to render this truth available there is some- 



48 DIVISIONS IN THE 

thing to be learned that is still more important 
(because to Orthodox Friends, as it seems, more 
difficult of comprehension), and that is that the 
advantages of a diversity of talent and tempera- 
ment cannot be enjoyed by any religious organi- 
zation which will not tolerate diversity, but 
maintains and enforces a fixed standard of 
speculative theological opinions, and which 
practically excludes the young, liberal-minded, 
and most essential portion of its members, by 
regarding as a requisite qualification for church 
service, compliance with an antiquated and 
senseless ritual as to "attire and manners." 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 49 



CHAPTER VI. 

Friends solicited to become Orthodox — Comparative induce- 
ments to membership as between the two principal branches 
— Objectionable features of Orthodoxy the work of a few 
members only — Great principles underlying the Quaker faith 
in its original simplicity — Orthodox subordinate them to 
theological dogmas — The true creed of Friends — The every- 
day virtues which adorn the life of the practical Christian. 

After what has been shown of the conse- 
quences resulting to Orthodox Friends from the 
separation and the policy which produced it, 
and seeing the present condition of their Yearly 
Meeting of Philadelphia, we might almost suspect 
the editor of the " Review" of perpetrating a joke 
in inviting Friends to join them. In speaking fur- 
ther of the new rules in regard to membership, 
before alluded to, he says : "All those who have 
been disowned on account of the separation of 
twoscore years ago, and who of course are not 
of the class covered by the new rules, would find 
easy access by application, if truly possessed of 
the faith by which Abraham and holy men of all 

4 



50 DIVISIONS IN TEE 

generations pleased God, and without which we 
are assured that it is impossible to please Him. 
And the willingness on the part of Friends in 
their congregate capacity to welcome the return 
of such, ought to partake of the nature of the joy 
of angels on each accession to the armies of the 
Lamb/' Doubtless, in theirpresent extremity, Or- 
thodox Friends would rejoice over any accessions 
to their numbers from that quarter; but to ex- 
pect them, denotes a degree of faith in the excel- 
lency of their system, and satisfaction with their 
present situation, which must be incomprehensi- 
ble to all but themselves. 

In reviewing the general circumstances of the 
separation of 1827, and especially the doctrinal 
creed and standard of opinions adopted and en- 
forced by Orthodox Friends and its results, and 
the conduct of that body toward Friends as before 
set forth, there are no doubt some, perhaps many, 
associated with Orthodox Friends, particularly of 
the younger class, to whose minds the subject has 
never before been thus fully presented, and who 
will feel that they have no unity or sympathy with 
any such proceedings, and do not really belong 
where the accident of birth, family connection, 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 51 

or other circumstances have placed them. It is 
apparent, and there is consolation in the reflec- 
tion, that the doings for which the bodv of Or- 
thodox Friends stands responsible, were, and are, 
the work of a comparatively few of their number, 
who, by their persistent intolerance, have thus 
far succeeded in controlling the action of the 
body, and have brought it to its present condi- 
tion. 

Friends, though much the larger body, have 
never assumed to be exclusively the Society of 
Friends, nor disowned their Orthodox brethren 
as offenders, nor sought to traduce them in the 
eyes of the Christian world ; but have permitted 
them to go their way in peace, trusting that if 
they were in error they would some day come to 
see and acknowledge it. The meetings of Friends 
have ever been open to any of the Orthodox 
brethren, who are regarded still as members in a 
state of voluntary suspension, and who may at 
any time avail themselves of the privileges of 
actual membership. 

The principles and testimonies upheld by the 
Society of Friends, in their original purity and 
simplicity, and as interpreted by the light of a 



52 DIVISIONS m THE 

liberal and progressive intelligence, cannot but 
commend themselves to every earnest seeker 
after truth. The remarkable wisdom and pene- 
tration of early Friends in laying the foundation 
of our religious system, when truly compre- 
hended, must strike the mind with admiration 
as a work of Divine origin, marking one of the 
most important epochs in the religious history of 
mankind. 

In ignoring theological creeds and standards 
of belief they at once laid down a great principle, 
which, like the discovery of any great truth in 
natural science, serves as a landmark in the ad- 
vance of thought and of truth, illuminating the 
dark recesses of error and superstition, and shed- 
ding radiance in every direction. This principle 
constitutes the corner-stone of all true religious liberty. 
It is simply absurd that men shall assume to pre- 
scribe opinions one for another. Opinions are 
convictions founded upon evidence, and are not 
subject to the will ; and hence the great folly 
of the persecutions for opinion's sake, which 
in times past have deluged the world with 
blood, and which, as we have seen, still exist in 
the form of accusations of heresy and unsound- 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 53 

ness, keeping alive a spirit of enmity and intoler- 
ance which drives all nobler feelings from the 
breast, and makes the profession of religion 
mere mockery. 

In declaring their testimony against the creeds 
and standards of faith, the controversies about 
which had convulsed the world and brought dis- 
grace upon the name of religion, Friends merely 
asserted the simple but important truth that true 
religion is not a mere system of opinions and theo- 
logical speculations, but that its object is to make 
men better; to promote peace, love, and good- 
will, and all those virtues which in every-day life 
most assimilate man to his Maker. 

A principle still more important is that of the 
paramount authority and universality of the 
spirit of Christ, or light of truth, in the soul, — 
that light which the Apostle John asserted to be 
" the true light which lighteth every man that 
cometh into the world. " Jesus declared to the 
woman at Jacob's well, "Whosoever drinkethof 
the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; 
but the water that I shall give him shall be in 
him a well of water springing up into everlasting 
life. * * * The hour cometh, and now is 



54 DIVISIONS IN THE 

when the true worshipers shall worship the 
Father in spirit and in truth. * * * God is 
a spirit, and they that worship him must worship 
him in spirit and in truth." 

This doctrine of the spirituality of religion is 
coming to be more and more recognized among 
intelligent religious professors; it is the Quaker 
leaven gradually doing its work. It is the moni- 
tor within, the ever-present guide and director 
given to all men alike. It makes religion to con- 
sist in the intercommunion of the soul with the 
Father of Spirits, in a prayerful seeking for guid- 
ance in the right, and not in outward forms and 
observances, and in beautiful harmony and con- 
sistency with it is the Friends' mode of silent wor- 
ship ;* and hence, too, the fallacy of dependence 

* In declaring this approval of silent worship, the writer 
must, however, give expression to a conviction long and earn- 
estly entertained, that in the advancing spirit of the age 
something more is required in order that Friends may continue 
to live and fulfill their mission as a religious organization, — 
some mode by which, as a regular order of society, the varied 
gifts and acquirements of all the members may be employed 
and developed for the good of one another, in a manner that 
shall be free from the restraint proper to the more solemn ex- 
ercises, but yet not to change the form of silent worship, or 
the ministry, as now existing. The consideration of this 
subject is not, however, within the scope of the present essay. 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 55 

upon a professional ministry. While not actually- 
denying this general doctrine, Orthodox Friends 
have, nevertheless, virtually set it aside, and 
made it secondary to the theological dogmas 
which they have adopted and set up as a creed 
or standard of faith. 

It may be asked, have the Society of Friends, 
then, no platform or common ground of faith or 
union other than the simple propositions before 
stated ? It may be answered that they have an 
ample creed, though not usually called by that 
name ; a creed founded, not in the refinements 
of scholastic theology nor theoretical opinions, 
but a faith reduced to practice, and rendered 
tangible by the habitual exercise of those vir- 
tues which adorn the every-day life of the prac- 
tical Christian. A principal part of the exer- 
cises of the business meeting of the Society of 
Friends for a long period, has consisted in the 
periodical reading and answering of certain 
queries, which bring up for consideration the 
state of society, and the conduct of the members 
generally. A few selections from these queries, 
and the advices laid down by the Yearly Meet- 
ing many years ago, will make apparent what 



56 DIVISIONS IN THE 

have been regarded as the chief essentials of 
Quakerism. 

"Are love and unity maintained among you? 
Are tale-bearing and detraction discouraged, 
and where any differences arise, are endeavors 
used speedily to end them ? Are Friends care- 
ful to live within the bounds of their circum- 
stances, and to keep to moderation in their trade 
or business; and are they punctual to their prom- 
ises and just in the payment of their debts ? 
Are they clear of the distillation or sale of spirit- 
uous liquors, and careful to discourage the use 
thereof as a drink, and the unnecessary frequent- 
ing of taverns? Do you maintain a faithful tes- 
timony against oaths, bearing arms, training, and 
other military services; being concerned in any 
fraudulent or clandestine trade; buying or vend- 
ing goods so imported, or prize goods; and 
against encouraging lotteries of any kind? Are 
poor Friends' necessities duly inspected, and they 
relieved or assisted in such business as they are 
capable of, and do their children freely partake 
of learning to fit them for business ?" 

Again, quoting from the advices of the Yearly 
Meeting : " It is the earnest desire of this Meet- 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 57 

ing that in all our dealings and transactions 
among men, strict justice may be observed; and 
that no motives of pecuniary interest may induce 
any of our members to impose on each other, 
or on their neighbors; and it is desired that 
Monthly Meetings may be careful to extend 
suitable admonition against a spirit of covet- 
ousness, and against every appearance of devia- 
tion from strict justice in any of our members." 

And again: "And it is the sense of this Meet- 
ing, that if any member thereof, disregarding 
the Gospel order prescribed by our discipline, 
shall arrest or sue at law another member, not 
being under such a necessity so to do, as may 
satisfy the overseers, or other solid and judicious 
Friends of the Meeting to which the latter be- 
longs, he or she, in so doing, doth depart from 
•the peaceable principle we make profession of, 
and if, on being treated with by the Monthly 
Meeting to which they belong, they cannot be 
prevailed with to withdraw the suit and pay the 
costs thereof, they should be disowned." 

An active sympathy for suffering and down- 
trodden humanity everywhere, and the zealous 
support of all works of charity and benevolence, 



58 DIVISIONS IN THE 

have also ever been cardinal principles with 
Friends. Do not all these much better comport 
with the character and precepts of Him who 
went about the world doing good, than all the 
high-sounding cant and sanctimonious preten- 
sion of popular evangelicalism which Orthodox 
Friends seem so desirous to imitate ? 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 59 



CHAPTER TIL 

Keconciliation and reunion — Keimion in a Society capacity im- 
probable — Implacability of Philadelphia Orthodox Yearly 
Meeting — Reunion only possible by return to first princi- 
ples and original simplicity under a modernized policy, 
guided by common sense — Hope from individual action. 

The subject of a reconciliation or reunion 
of the several divisions of Friends naturally pre- 
sents itself as our concluding topic. Reunion 
in a society capacity can scarcely be regarded 
as a probable event in the present state of 
enlightenment on these subjects. Upon reli- 
gious subjects more than any other, men seem 
to be governed by prejudice rather than reason ; 
and especially does this seem to be the case 
among the several branches of Friends toward 
each other in reference to their several points of 
difference. We have seen that for more than 
forty years the spirit of intolerance and vitupera- 
tion has been kept alive on the part of the Ortho- 
dox Friends of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. 



60 DIVISIONS IN THE 

In New York and Baltimore Yearly Meet- 
ings Friends, having been largely in the majority, 
retained possession of the common property at 
the separation, but tendered to Orthodox Friends 
their due proportion according to numbers, 
which they refused, claiming, like their brethren 
of Philadelphia, to be the Society of Friends, and 
entitled to all. Within a few years past they 
have, however, so far changed their ground as to 
treat with Friends upon an even footing, and to 
accept their proportion of property as originally 
offered, and a much more fraternal feeling is now 
said to prevail. But in Philadelphia, where Or- 
thodox Friends generally obtained possession of 
the common property, no advance toward a di- 
vision of the common property, or other step 
toward reconciliation, has ever been made by 
them. 

The separation of 1827 had its origin, accord- 
ing to the view of the writer as before expressed, 
in a departure from the simple faith of the So- 
ciety by the introduction of speculative theology, 
and the attempt to enforce uniformity of belief 
in regard to certain dogmatic theories. If this 
be so, how simple would be the process of re- 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 61 

union, — merely to come back to first principles ! 
and yet how improbable when we consider that 
Orthodox Friends of Philadelphia Yearly Meet- 
ing only a year ago put forth an address reassert- 
ing the same dogmatical speculations as the chief 
essentials of their religious faith, and imputing 
the charge of heresy against all who do not pro- 
fess to believe just as they do ! 

Reunion can only take place through not 
merely a return to first principles and original 
simplicity, but by a general acquiescence in the 
necessity for renewed life, through a modernized 
system as to forms and usages, under the guid- 
ance of common sense; untrammeled by sense- 
less peculiarities and slavish ritualism, and un- 
biased, either by the teachings or the example 
of the popular religionists of the day, beyond 
a recognition of whatever in them may be inher- 
ently good and true, 

Orthodox Friends of some of the Meetings in 
the Western States of this Union are to be com- 
mended for their activity and zeal, and doubtless 
too, in some respects, for their liberality ; but in 
the judgment of the writer they have departed 
from the simplicity in matters of faith and calm 



62 DIVISIONS IN THE 

stability of deportment which come only from 
looking to the internal instead of the external. 
Activity and zeal in the service of the Almighty 
do not necessarily and alone consist in the form 
of devotional observances common among Evan- 
gelical professors, nor depend for their effective- 
ness either upon the amount of clamor produced, 
or sanctity assumed, but may find an ample field 
in the more enlarged view, which regards reli- 
gion as a thing entirely compatible and co-ordi- 
nate with reason and common intelligence, — 
which recognizes as a religious exercise, and one 
of the highest obligation and importance, the cul- 
ture and development of the intellectual and 
moral nature ; and which finds the highest 
motive for the love and adoration of the Deity 
in the study and contemplation of His works. 

We have seen, by the accounts given of the 
condition of the Meetings of the Orthodox 
Friends of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, that 
many of them are in a state of rapid decline; and 
this state of things is by no means confined to 
that body. The causes of this are apparent, 
but they do not affect the vital principles of 
Quakerism. 



SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 63 

The time may come when individual mem- 
bers, free to follow their own convictions, and 
loving the principles of Friends, may find kin- 
dred spirits, and be prepared to unite under the 
ancient standard, animated by a new life, and 
willing in sincerity of heart to lay aside past dif- 
ferences and animosities, and join in the anthem 
" Glory to God in the highest, and on earth 
peace, good will toward men." 



